This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-12-543
entitled 'Charter Schools: Additional Federal Attention Needed to Help
Protect Access for Students with Disabilities' which was released on
June 20, 2012.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as
part of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility.
Every attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data
integrity of the original printed product. Accessibility features,
such as text descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes
placed at the end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters,
are provided but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format
of the printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an
exact electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your
feedback. Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or
accessibility features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
Report to Congressional Requesters:
June 2012:
Charter Schools:
Additional Federal Attention Needed to Help Protect Access for
Students with Disabilities:
GAO-12-543:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-12-543, a report to congressional requesters.
Why GAO Did This Study:
Why GAO Did This Study
While the number of charter schools is growing rapidly, questions have
been raised about whether charter schools are appropriately serving
students with disabilities. GAO was asked: (1) How do enrollment
levels of students with disabilities in charter schools and
traditional public schools compare, and what is known about the
factors that may contribute to any differences? (2) How do charter
schools reach out to students with disabilities and what special
education services do charter schools provide? (3) What role do
Education, state educational agencies, and other entities that oversee
charter schools play in ensuring students with disabilities have
access to charter schools? GAO analyzed federal data on the number and
characteristics of students with disabilities; visited charter schools
and school districts in three states selected on the basis of the
number of charter schools in the state, among other things; and
interviewed representatives of federal, state, and other agencies that
oversee charter schools.
What GAO Found:
Charter schools enrolled a lower percentage of students with
disabilities than traditional public schools, but little is known
about the factors contributing to these differences. In school year
2009-2010, which was the most recent data available at the time of our
review, approximately 11 percent of students enrolled in traditional
public schools were students with disabilities compared to about 8
percent of students enrolled in charter schools.
GAO also found that, relative to traditional public schools, the
proportion of charter schools that enrolled high percentages of
students with disabilities was lower overall. Specifically, students
with disabilities represented 8 to 12 percent of all students at 23
percent of charter schools compared to 34 percent of traditional
public schools. However, when compared to traditional public schools,
a higher percentage of charter schools enrolled more than 20 percent
of students with disabilities. Several factors may help explain why
enrollment levels of students with disabilities in charter schools and
traditional public schools differ, but the information is anecdotal.
For example, charter schools are schools of choice, so enrollment
levels may differ because fewer parents of students with disabilities
choose to enroll their children in charter schools. In addition, some
charter schools may be discouraging students with disabilities from
enrolling. Further, in certain instances, traditional public school
districts play a role in the placement of students with disabilities
in charter schools. In these instances, while charter schools
participate in the placement process, they do not always make the
final placement decisions for students with disabilities. Finally,
charter schools’ resources may be constrained, making it difficult to
meet the needs of students with more severe disabilities.
Most of the 13 charter schools GAO visited publicized and offered
special education services, but faced challenges serving students with
severe disabilities. Most charter school officials said they
publicized the availability of special education services in several
ways, including fliers and placing ads in the local newspaper. Many
charter schools GAO visited also reported tailoring special education
services to individuals’ needs, but faced challenges serving students
with severe disabilities due to insufficient resources. About half of
the charter school officials GAO interviewed cited insufficient
resources, including limited space, as a challenge.
The U.S. Department of Education’s (Education) Office for Civil Rights
has undertaken two compliance reviews related to charter schools’
recruitment and admission of students with disabilities in three
states, but has not issued recent guidance covering admission
practices in detail, nor has Education conducted recent research about
factors affecting lower enrollment in charter schools. The three
states GAO visited already have taken steps to monitor charter schools’
admission practices. In addition, officials in these three states
reported prohibiting disability-related questions on charter school
admission forms, in part to protect students with disabilities’ access.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO recommends that the Secretary of Education take measures to help
charter schools recognize practices that may affect enrollment of
students with disabilities by updating existing guidance and
conducting additional fact finding and research to identify factors
affecting enrollment levels of these students in charter schools.
Education agreed with our recommendations.
View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-543]. For more
information, contact George Scott at (202) 512-7215 or scottg@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Background:
Enrollment Levels of Students with Disabilities in Traditional Public
Schools and Charter Schools Differed, but Little Is Known about
Factors Contributing to Differences:
Charter Schools We Visited Offer Special Education Services, but Faced
Challenges with Severe Disabilities:
Education Is Reviewing Admission Practices, and Some States Have
Implemented Preventive Measures:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Appendix II: Additional Analysis:
Appendix III: Additional Data:
Appendix IV: Comments from the U.S. Department of Education:
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: Percent of Traditional Public Schools and Charter Schools
Serving Students with Disabilities in School Year 2009-2010:
Table 2: Site Visit Characteristics:
Figures:
Figure1: Differences in Charter Schools' LEA Status for Purposes of
Special Education:
Figure 2: Percent of Students in Charter Schools and Traditional
Public Schools Who Had Disabilities Compared to Students with
Disabilities' Overall Representation in Public Schools:
Figure 3: Differences in the Percentage of Students with Disabilities
Enrolled in Traditional Public Schools and Charter Schools for States
with Operating Charter Schools in School Year 2009-2010:
Figure 4: Percent of Students with Disabilities Enrolled in
Traditional Public Schools and Charter Schools by Disability Type for
School Year 2009-2010:
Figure 5: Amount of Time Spent inside Regular Class by Students with
Disabilities, School Year 2009-2010:
Figure 6: Selected Factors That May Contribute to Differences in
Enrollment Levels of Students with Disabilities in Traditional Public
Schools and Charter Schools:
Figure 7: Distributions of Students' Disability Types for Students
with Disabilities Enrolled in Traditional Public Schools and Charter
Schools for School Year 2009-2010:
Abbreviations:
CCD: Common Core of Data:
CSP: Charter Schools Program, U.S. Department of Education:
Education: U.S. Department of Education:
ESEA: Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965:
FAPE: free appropriate public education:
IDEA: Individuals with Disabilities Education Act:
IEP: Individualized Education Program:
Justice: U.S. Department of Justice:
LEA: local educational agency:
OCR: Office for Civil Rights, U.S. Department of Education:
OESE: Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, U.S. Department of
Education:
OII: Office of Innovation and Improvement, U.S. Department of
Education:
OSEP: Office of Special Education Programs, U.S. Department of
Education:
OSERS: Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, U.S.
Department of Education:
Section 504: Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973:
SEA state education agency:
[End of section]
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
June 7, 2012:
The Honorable George Miller:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Education and the Workforce:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Raúl Grijalva:
House of Representatives:
As the number of charter schools in the United States continues to
grow, questions have been raised about whether charter schools, a
relatively new phenomenon in public education that began in the early
1990s, are appropriately serving students with disabilities and
providing access to students with more severe disabilities. Actions at
both the state and local levels have shed light on this issue and
brought it to the attention of the public. For example, a class-action
lawsuit filed against the Louisiana Department of Education in October
2010 alleges that students with disabilities were denied access to New
Orleans public schools, most of which are charter schools, and cites
lower percentages of students with disabilities in charter schools
compared to traditional public schools.[Footnote 1]
Charter schools provide students and parents with increased
educational options, and all students, including students with
disabilities, generally enroll in charter schools on the basis of
their parents' choice. States grant charter schools increased autonomy
in school management in exchange for agreeing to improve student
achievement, but charter schools do not have the authority to waive
federal statutory requirements related to education.
In response to questions about enrollment levels of students with
disabilities in charter schools, we addressed the following questions:
(1) how do enrollment levels of students with disabilities in charter
schools and traditional public schools compare, and what is known
about the factors that may contribute to any differences; (2) how do
charter schools reach out to students with disabilities and what
special education services do charter schools provide; and (3) what
roles do the Department of Education (Education), state educational
agencies (SEA), and other entities that oversee charter schools play
in ensuring students with disabilities' access to charter schools?
To compare enrollment levels of students with disabilities in charter
schools and traditional public schools,[Footnote 2] we analyzed school-
level data for school years 2008-2009 and 2009-2010, the most recent
data available at the time, from a custom data file provided by
Education. The data include counts of students with disabilities in
traditional public schools and charter schools, students' age and
disability type, the educational environment, and whether each school
is its own local educational agency (LEA) or part of a larger LEA. To
examine how charter schools reach out to students with disabilities
and the types of services charter schools provide, we visited a major
metropolitan area in three states and interviewed officials in 13
charter schools as well as several school districts, selected to
include states with a large number of charter schools, a mix in LEA
status, and geographic diversity. To determine the role Education and
other organizations play in ensuring students with disabilities'
access to charter schools, we reviewed relevant federal laws and
regulations and interviewed representatives of Education, the
Department of Justice, selected SEAs, and other entities, such as
charter school authorizers that oversee charter schools. We also
interviewed representatives of state and local charter school
organizations and organizations representing parents of students with
disabilities about their perspective on students with disabilities'
access to charter schools. Appendix I provides a detailed description
of our methodology and its limitations, as well as the scope.
This study was not intended to determine charter schools' compliance
with applicable federal requirements for educating students with
disabilities.
We conducted this performance audit from February 2011 to May 2012, in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on the audit objectives. We believe
that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We assessed
the reliability of the data file that Education provided by (1)
performing electronic data testing for obvious errors in accuracy and
completeness, (2) reviewing existing information about the data and
the system that produced the data, and (3) interviewing agency
officials knowledgeable about these data. We determined that the data
were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report.
Background:
Charter schools are public schools created to achieve a number of
goals, including encouraging innovation in public education and
addressing failing schools. Charter schools operate with more autonomy
than traditional public schools in exchange for agreeing to improve
student achievement, an agreement that is formalized in a contract or
charter with the school's authorizing body. From about 3,000 charter
schools in school year 2003-2004 to almost 5,000 in school year 2009-
20010, the number of charter schools in the United States continues to
grow. Spurring this growth are parents' and others' desire for schools
that reflect their vision of public education, and federal incentives,
such as the recent $4 billion Race to the Top (RTT) competitive grant
fund, which among other things, encourages the growth of high
performing charter schools, and the Charter Schools Program Grants for
Replication and Expansion of High Quality Charter Schools.
States specify which entities within the state can authorize the
establishment of a charter school, including state departments of
education, state boards of education, school districts or local
educational agencies (LEA), institutions of higher education, and
municipal governments. Some states have also created independent
charter school boards that can authorize charter schools in the state.
Once charter schools are in operation, the authorizer is generally
responsible for monitoring school performance and has authority to
close the school or take other actions if academic goals or state
financial requirements are not met.
States also define how charter schools will be structured and they do
so in different ways (see figure 1). For example, unlike traditional
public schools that are part of a larger LEA, some states establish
charter schools as their own LEA. Other states require them to be part
of a larger LEA, while still other states allow charter schools the
option to choose between being a distinct LEA or part of a larger LEA.
Further, some states allow charter schools to be their own LEA for
some purposes and part of a larger LEA for others, including for
purposes of special education. With respect to special education, two
common practices are that (1) in states that define a charter school
to be a part of a larger LEA, the responsibility for providing special
education services to charter school students with disabilities
remains with that LEA and (2) in states where charter schools are
their own LEA, the state makes charter schools responsible for
providing the services themselves.
Figure 1: Differences in Charter Schools' LEA Status for Purposes of
Special Education:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustration]
A charter school LEA has the same obligations as a traditional public
school district for securing the appropriate special education
services for students with disabilities.
The district is responsible for securing the appropriate special
education services for students with disabilities.
The district, not the charter school, often provides special education
services.
Source: GAO review of relevant federal laws and regulations.
[End of figure]
Like traditional public schools, charter schools are subject to a
number of federal requirements. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act
of 1973[Footnote 3] and the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act[Footnote 4] (IDEA), as amended, are the two primary laws that
address the rights of students with disabilities to education.
* IDEA was enacted in 1975 and authorizes federal funding for special
education and related services. For states that accept IDEA funding,
the statute sets out detailed requirements regarding the provision of
special education, including the requirement that children with
disabilities receive a free appropriate public education.[Footnote 5]
In addition, under IDEA, states must ensure that an Individualized
Education Program (IEP) is developed and implemented for each student
with a disability. The IEP process creates an opportunity for
teachers, parents, school administrators, related services personnel,
and students (when appropriate) to work together to improve
educational results for children with disabilities. These requirements
apply in public charter schools just as they do in traditional public
schools. IDEA provides funding and assigns responsibility for
complying with requirements to states, and through them, to LEAs. In
ensuring that IDEA requirements are met for students with disabilities
attending charter schools, states may retain that responsibility or
assign it to the charter school LEA, the larger LEA to which the
charter school belongs, or some other public entity.[Footnote 6]
* Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, enacted in 1973, is a civil
rights statute that prohibits discrimination against an otherwise
qualified individual with a disability solely by reason of disability
in any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance or
under any program or activity conducted by an executive agency.
Education's Section 504 regulation states that no qualified person
with a disability shall, on the basis of disability, be excluded from
participation in, be denied the benefits of, or otherwise be subjected
to discrimination under any program or activities which receives
federal financial assistance.[Footnote 7] Subpart D of Education's
regulation contains specific requirements regarding elementary and
secondary education, including the provision of a free appropriate
public education (FAPE) to each qualified person with a disability in
the recipient's (recipient of federal financial assistance)
jurisdiction, regardless of the nature or severity of the person's
disability.[Footnote 8] Even if a state declines IDEA funds, the state
must comply with Section 504 if it receives other federal financial
assistance. Education's Office for Civil Rights (OCR) enforces Section
504 for the department's programs through investigation of complaints
and compliance reviews that are initiated by the department.
* Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended,
prohibits discrimination based on disability in public entities,
including schools.[Footnote 9] The Department of Justice and OCR both
have jurisdiction to investigate complaints under this title.[Footnote
10]
Enrollment Levels of Students with Disabilities in Traditional Public
Schools and Charter Schools Differed, but Little Is Known about
Factors Contributing to Differences:
Charter schools enrolled[Footnote 11] a lower percentage of students
with disabilities than traditional public schools in both school years
2008-2009 and 2009-2010 (see figure 2).[Footnote 12] For example, in
school year 2009-2010, there was about a 3 percentage point difference
between the percentage of students with disabilities enrolled in
traditional public schools and charter schools. As shown in figure 2,
the percentage of students with disabilities in charter schools
increased slightly between the 2 school years we examined, while the
percentage of students with disabilities in traditional public schools
stayed about the same.
Figure 2: Percent of Students in Charter Schools and Traditional
Public Schools Who Had Disabilities Compared to Students with
Disabilities' Overall Representation in Public Schools:
[Refer to PDF for image: horizontal bar graph]
2008-2009 school year:
Percentage of students with disabilities:
Charter schools: 7.7% (N = 1,404,092);
Traditional public schools: 11.3% (N = 42,296,029);
Entire public school-age population: 11.2% (N = 43,700,121).
2009-2010 school year:
Percentage of students with disabilities:
Charter schools: 8.2% (N = 1,574,985);
Traditional public schools: 11.2% (N = 42,337,326);
Entire public school-age population: 11.1% (N = 43,912,311).
Source: GAO analysis of EDFacts data and the Common Core of Data.
Note: The student population for our analysis includes students aged 6-
21 in those 40 states with operating charter schools and the District
of Columbia during school years 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 only. School-
level data on students with disabilities were not available for
District of Columbia, Mississippi, Rhode Island, and Tennessee for
school year 2008-2009 and for Tennessee and Utah for school year 2009-
2010. Therefore, students in those states were excluded from our
denominator when calculating the percentages shown above. See appendix
I for more information.
[End of figure]
When examining enrollment levels of students with disabilities in
traditional public schools and charter schools for individual states,
a more varied picture emerges. In most states, charter schools
enrolled a lower percentage of students with disabilities when
compared to traditional public schools. For example, in the state of
New Hampshire, about 6 percent of students in charter schools were
students with disabilities compared to about 13 percent of students in
traditional public schools. However, in eight states--Iowa, Minnesota,
Nevada, New Mexico, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wyoming--charter
schools enrolled the same percentage or a higher percentage of
students with disabilities than traditional public schools in the
state (see figure 3). For example, in Wyoming, the enrollment level of
students with disabilities in charter schools was about 4 percentage
points greater than in traditional public schools.
Figure 3: Differences in the Percentage of Students with Disabilities
Enrolled in Traditional Public Schools and Charter Schools for States
with Operating Charter Schools in School Year 2009-2010:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustrated U.S. map]
Difference in enrollment levels:
No percentage difference:
Minnesota: 0%;
New Mexico: 0%.
Higher percentage in traditional schools:
Alaska: 4%;
Arizona: 2%;
Arkansas: 5%;
California: 4%;
Colorado: 3%;
Connecticut: 3%;
Delaware: 8%;
District of Columbia: 3%;
Florida: 4%;
Georgia: 2%;
Hawaii: 2%;
Idaho: 2%;
Illinois: 13%;
Indiana: 4%;
Kansas: 6%;
Louisiana: 4%;
Maryland: 2%;
Massachusetts: 3%;
Michigan: 3%;
Mississippi: 2%;
Missouri: 5%;
New Hampshire: 7%;
New Jersey: 6%;
North Carolina: 1%;
Oklahoma: 6%;
Oregon: 4%;
Rhode Island: 3%;
South Carolina: 4%;
Texas: 1%;
Wisconsin: 1%.
Higher percentage in charter schools:
Iowa: 6%;
Nevada: 1%;
Ohio: 2%;
Pennsylvania: 2%;
Virginia: 11% (the concentration of students with disabilities is 11
percentage points higher in charter schools than in traditional
schools).
Wyoming: 4%.
States that did not operate charter schools in school year 2009-2010:
Alabama:
Kentucky:
Maine:
Montana:
Nebraska:
North Dakota:
South Dakota:
Vermont:
Washington:
West Virginia:
States that operated charter schools in school year 2009-2010,but were
missing school-level data:
New York[A]:
Tennessee[A]:
Utah[A]:
Source: GAO analysis of EDFacts data and the Common Core of Data;
National Atlas of the United States (base map).
[A] School-level data on students with disabilities were not available
for Tennessee and Utah for school year 2009-2010. Data on students
with disabilities in charter schools were missing for the state of New
York. See appendix I for more information on state-level data.
[End of figure]
We also found that, relative to traditional public schools, the
proportion of charter schools that enrolled high percentages of
students with disabilities was lower overall and generally tapered off
the greater the enrollment of students with disabilities.
Specifically, the enrollment of students with disabilities was 8 to 12
percent at 23 percent of charter schools and 34 percent of traditional
public schools. Further, when the enrollment of students with
disabilities reached 12 to16 percent, about 13 percent of charter
schools compared to 25 percent of traditional public schools had these
enrollment levels. However, when compared to traditional public
schools, a higher percentage of charter schools enrolled more than 20
percent of students with disabilities. During an interview with
Education, an official noted that there has been an increase in
charter schools for students with disabilities, such as schools for
students with autism, for example, which may help explain this
difference.
Table 1: Percent of Traditional Public Schools and Charter Schools
Serving Students with Disabilities in School Year 2009-2010:
Percentage of students with disabilities out of each school's total
enrollment: less than 4;
Percent of traditional public schools (N = 74,673): 3.4%;
Percent of charter schools (N = 4,111): 16.8%.
Percentage of students with disabilities out of each school's total
enrollment: 4 to less than 8;
Percent of traditional public schools (N = 74,673): 19.3%;
Percent of charter schools (N = 4,111): 29.7%.
Percentage of students with disabilities out of each school's total
enrollment: 8 to less than 12;
Percent of traditional public schools (N = 74,673): 34.2%;
Percent of charter schools (N = 4,111): 23.1%.
Percentage of students with disabilities out of each school's total
enrollment: 12 to less than 16;
Percent of traditional public schools (N = 74,673): 24.7%;
Percent of charter schools (N = 4,111): 12.5%.
Percentage of students with disabilities out of each school's total
enrollment: 16 to less than 20;
Percent of traditional public schools (N = 74,673): 10.4%;
Percent of charter schools (N = 4,111): 6.1%.
Percentage of students with disabilities out of each school's total
enrollment: >=20;
Percent of traditional public schools (N = 74,673): 8.0%;
Percent of charter schools (N = 4,111): 11.7%.
Source: GAO analysis of EDFacts data and the Common Core of Data.
Note: See appendix I for more information on how we arrived at the
total number of traditional public schools and charter schools in
order to calculate the percentages shown and for information on
missing data.
[End of table]
A more detailed look at aggregate enrollment data of students with
disabilities in traditional public schools and charter schools shows
that compared to traditional public schools, charter schools enrolled
a lower percentage of students in each of the 13 disability
categories[Footnote 13] in school year 2009-2010 (see figure 4). For
example, of all students enrolled in traditional public schools, about
5 percent of students had a specific learning disability, compared to
about 4 percent of all students enrolled in charter schools. For
information about the distribution of students' disability types, see
appendix III.
Figure 4: Percent of Students with Disabilities Enrolled in
Traditional Public Schools and Charter Schools by Disability Type for
School Year 2009-2010:
[Refer to PDF for image: horizontal bar graph]
Tradition public schools: N = 42,337,326;
Charter Schools: N = 1,574,985.
Percentage of students enrolled with disability type: Autism:
Tradition public schools: 0.63%;
Charter Schools: 0.43%.
Percentage of students enrolled with disability type: Deaf-blindness:
Tradition public schools: less than 0.01%;
Charter Schools: less than 0.01%.
Percentage of students enrolled with disability type: Developmental
delay:
Tradition public schools: 0.18%;
Charter Schools: 0.05%.
Percentage of students enrolled with disability type: Emotional
disturbance:
Tradition public schools: 0.73%;
Charter Schools: 0.65%.
Percentage of students enrolled with disability type: Hearing impaired:
Tradition public schools: 0.13%;
Charter Schools: 0.07%.
Percentage of students enrolled with disability type: Intellectual
disabilities:
Tradition public schools: 0.84%;
Charter Schools: 0.45%.
Percentage of students enrolled with disability type: Multiple
disabilities:
Tradition public schools: 0.2%;
Charter Schools: 0.12%.
Percentage of students enrolled with disability type: Orthopedic
impairment:
Tradition public schools: 0.12%;
Charter Schools: 0.08%.
Percentage of students enrolled with disability type: Other health
impairment:
Tradition public schools: 1.3%;
Charter Schools: 0.91%.
Percentage of students enrolled with disability type: Specific
learning disability:
Tradition public schools: 4.8%;
Charter Schools: 3.89%.
Percentage of students enrolled with disability type: Speech or
language impairment:
Tradition public schools: 2.09%;
Charter Schools: 1.54%.
Percentage of students enrolled with disability type: Traumatic brain
injury:
Tradition public schools: 0.05%;
Charter Schools: 0.03%.
Percentage of students enrolled with disability type: Visual
impairment:
Traditional public schools: 0.05%;
Charter Schools: 0.02%.
Source: GAO analysis of EDFacts data and the Common Core of Data.
Note: Missing data are not shown.
[End of figure]
Of those students with disabilities who spent time in regular class, a
higher percentage of students with disabilities in charter schools
spent 80 percent or more of the day in a regular classroom compared to
those students in traditional public schools (see figure 5). For
example, about 80 percent of students with disabilities in charter
schools spent 80 percent or more of the day inside regular class
compared to about 62 percent of students with disabilities in
traditional public schools.
Figure 5: Amount of Time Spent inside Regular Class by Students with
Disabilities, School Year 2009-2010:
[Refer to PDF for image: horizontal bar graph]
Tradition public schools: N = 4,617,172;
Charter Schools: N = 126,636.
Percentage of students with disabilities:
Inside regular class for 80% of the day or more:
Tradition public schools: 62.0%;
Charter Schools: 80.3%.
Inside regular class for 40% to 79% of the day:
Tradition public schools: 22.5%;
Charter Schools: 13.0%;
Inside regular class for less than 40% of the day:
Tradition public schools: 15.5%;
Charter Schools: 6.7%.
Source: GAO analysis of EDFacts data.
[End of figure]
Little Is Known about Factors Contributing to Differences in
Enrollment Patterns:
Although there are differences in enrollment levels, the reasons for
these differences are not entirely clear. During the course of our
work, we learned about several factors such as parental preference and
school capacity that may help explain why charter schools enroll a
lower percentage of students with disabilities when compared to
traditional public schools (see figure 6). However, information about
these factors is often based on anecdotal information, and little is
known about how each of the factors actually contributes to
differences in enrollment levels, if at all.
Figure 6: Selected Factors That May Contribute to Differences in
Enrollment Levels of Students with Disabilities in Traditional Public
Schools and Charter Schools:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustration]
Placement:
* Charter schools that are their own local educational agency make the
final decisions as to where students are placed and receive services.
* Charter schools that are part of traditional public school districts
play a role in, but do not make final placement decisions for students
with disabilities.
Location:
* A higher percentage of traditional public schools are located in
suburban areas and towns;
* More than half of charter schools are located in cities;
* Less is known about where students with disabilities are located.
Parental preference and student needs:
* Parents may consider whether or not a charter school's mission is
philosophically aligned with their goals for their child;
* Transportation issues may pose challenges and limit school choice
options;
* The distribution of grade levels differs in charter schools and
traditional public schools.
Capacity:
* Traditional public schools tend be larger, more established, and
often have more resources;
* Charter schools tend be smaller, less established, and often have
fewer resources.
Funding:
* Some states base their special education funding formula on a
student's needs and disability;
* Some states do not provide separate funding for special education,
and funding to support special education is rolled into overall school
funding.
Source: GAO review of Education documents; interviews with Charter
School experts and school and federal agency officials; and relevant
research.
[End of figure]
Parents' preferences and students' needs may play a role in
contributing to differences in enrollment levels. For example,
according to a national organization representing special educators
and parents of students with disabilities, parents often weigh their
options and take many things into consideration when deciding whether
or not to enroll their child in a charter school. Parents may consider
whether or not a charter school's mission--such as that of a single-
language immersion charter school--is philosophically aligned with
their goals for their child. Parents also may consider the
availability of transportation, what grades the charter school serves,
and whether the charter school's special education services would meet
their child's needs.
Anecdotal accounts also suggest that some charter schools may be
discouraging students with disabilities from enrolling and denying
admission to students with more severe disabilities because services
are too costly. Representatives of a parent organization we spoke with
said that some charter schools do not identify disabilities or
document special education services, but rather provide the
interventions "informally," without including them on students' IEPs.
The representatives expressed concern about this practice, because if
a student transfers to another school, the school may not be aware of
the types of services the student had previously been receiving.
Furthermore, some charter schools give "placement exams," which
schools say are designed to provide baseline information on students'
knowledge, but representatives of this organization said that these
types of exams can be frustrating to some students with disabilities
and may discourage them from enrolling. However, there are no
comprehensive data to determine the extent to which charter schools
may be discouraging students with disabilities from enrolling or the
extent to which such practices actually contribute to differences in
enrollment levels.
Moreover, how placement decisions are made for students with
disabilities may also influence enrollment levels. For example, in
some instances, charter schools are not ultimately responsible for
making the final placement decision for students with disabilities.
This is the case for those charter schools that are part of a larger
LEA where final placement decisions for students with disabilities are
made by the LEA, not the charter school. It may be the case that more
often than not, LEAs determine that traditional public schools, not
charter schools, are in a better position to commit resources and to
ensure that the services agreed upon in a student's Individualized
Education Program (IEP) can adequately be provided. For example,
charter schools may not have the same capacity, resources (e.g.,
space), knowledge, or experience necessary to serve students with
specified disabilities. In addition, charter school LEAs may face
challenges acquiring special education services or providers because
charter school LEAs, which are often smaller than traditional public
school districts, may not have the same resources that larger-sized
school districts have. Different state funding formulas for special
education may also drive placement decisions. For example, some states
provide a higher level of funding for special education based on the
severity of a student's disability, making it more feasible
financially for schools to serve students with more severe
disabilities. In contrast, other states do not take such factors into
consideration when providing funding for special education, which may
place a heavy financial burden on individual schools.
The distribution of grade levels in traditional public schools and
charter schools differs, which may contribute to differences in
enrollment levels of students with disabilities as well. Education's
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) reported that
elementary schools constituted 71 percent of traditional public
schools compared to 54 percent of charter schools during school year
2008-2009.[Footnote 14] Therefore, parents of elementary school-aged
children with disabilities may find fewer charter school options
because a lower percentage of charter schools serve this age group and
because charter schools represent a small percentage of all public
schools nationwide.[Footnote 15]
Further, we heard anecdotally from charter school representatives and
researchers that, following a reassessment, school officials may
determine that a student that previously had an IEP no longer needs
special education, which could account for the lower percentages of
students with disabilities in charter schools.[Footnote 16] However,
there are no available data to support this, and an Education official
suggested that students with disabilities in general do not leave
special education in large numbers.
Charter Schools We Visited Offer Special Education Services, but Faced
Challenges with Severe Disabilities:
Most of the 13 charter schools we visited reported using multiple
strategies to publicize the availability of special education services
in their school and the charter school's presence in the community.
For example, some charter school officials mentioned word-of-mouth as
a way of informing parents about their school.[Footnote 17] Some also
reported distributing fliers in the community, mailing fliers to
parents of every kindergarten student or 5th grader, or placing ads in
the local newspaper or other media. Some schools said that they did
not specifically target students with disabilities.
In combination with these more informal strategies, many of the
charter schools we visited also said that they held an open house or
meeting during which prospective students and their parents could
visit the school, ask questions, and tour the school. Some saw the
open houses as an opportunity to discuss the special education
services they offered. Officials at one school said that their special
education teachers attended the open house and discussed their
program, including any limitations in the school's special education
offerings. Several of the charter schools could not accommodate all of
the students wishing to enroll and held a lottery to determine
admission. Some said that they had waiting lists and emphasized that
they accepted students on a first come, first served basis, and thus
give no preference to students with disabilities or other student
subgroup.
Many of the charter school officials we interviewed demonstrated
awareness that inquiring about a student's disability status on the
charter school application might be perceived as an attempt to
discourage enrollment and took steps to minimize the possibility. For
example, in two of the states we visited, in charter schools that
asked parents to fill out an application form, charter school
officials said that the form did not ask questions about the student's
disability status. Once the child was accepted to the school and
enrolled, some schools asked parents to fill out an enrollment form
that asked for information about the child's health history, and, if
transferring from another school, about the child's prior academic
program, including receipt of special education services. Charter
school officials emphasized that questions about disability status or
prior receipt of special education services were not asked on the
application form and made reference to state requirements that
prohibited such questions before enrollment. According to state
officials, such questions were prohibited to prevent charter school
officials from using the information to identify students that were
potentially more costly to serve and to attempt to discourage the
parents from enrolling such students before an assessment of their
needs was done.
In contrast, some charter school officials in one of the three states
we visited did include questions about receipt of special education
services and whether the child had an IEP on the charter school
application form. Officials representing the school acknowledged that
the application includes such questions but said that they look at the
application only for name, address and telephone number. Officials at
another charter school reported that the school's admission
application collects information about whether a child has special
needs, but discounted the accuracy of the information, saying that
some parents of students with disabilities become confused about the
services their child has received and the terminology.
Charter Schools Reported Tailoring Special Education Services to
Individual Students' Needs:
Many of the charter school officials we interviewed reported providing
services specific to each child's needs. The special education
services offered by most of the charter schools we visited included
speech and language therapy, occupational and physical therapy,
counseling, and academic supports, usually in reading and math. Some
charter schools visited offered vision, hearing, and behavioral
supports and some mentioned providing technologies to assist students
with more severe learning disabilities.
Almost all of the charter schools we visited offered special education
services to students in the regular classroom for most of the day,
with "pull-out" sessions in a resource room for more focused services.
The term "pull-out" sessions refers to the practice of providing
special education services for students with disabilities in a place
that is separate from the regular classroom. One school reported using
"push-in" sessions, in which the special education teacher went into
the classroom to provide special education services. Officials at
three schools reported teaching students in a self-contained
classroom, but some said they did not have the resources to provide
that type of educational environment. One charter school official said
that when a student's IEP includes a service that the school does not
offer, such as a self-contained classroom, the IEP committee has
modified the IEP to accommodate facility limitations while still
meeting the needs of the child. For example, that school offered more
intensive services in the general classroom staffed by a general
education teacher, a special education teacher and a teaching
assistant, for students whose IEP specifies those services.
When faced with a need for services by a child already enrolled that
were greater than the charter school could provide, the charter
schools we visited took different approaches. In charter schools where
the district was responsible for placement, most of the charter school
officials we interviewed said that the school district intervened to
decide the appropriate placement for the child and inform the parents.
In contrast, charter school LEAs took different approaches. One said
that parents were told during an IEP meeting that the school could not
serve certain severe disabilities. Before moving the child, officials
reconvened the IEP meeting to consider the decision. Two others
discussed the issue with the parents, but allowed them to make the
decision on where to place the child, without reference to an IEP
placement decision meeting.
About Half of the Charter Schools We Interviewed Cited Insufficient
Resources to Serve Severe Disabilities as a Challenge:
Officials representing about half of the 13 charter schools we visited
said that having sufficient resources to serve students with more
severe disabilities, including providing a self-contained classroom
when needed, was their greatest challenge. For example, two officials
said that their school facility could not provide a self-contained
classroom. A third official explained that providing a self contained
classroom is especially challenging because of the need to provide
separate classrooms for each grade grouping as well as teachers. Thus,
if a school had 3rd and 4th graders requiring self-contained
classrooms, they would need to have space to accommodate two separate
classrooms. The official said that the charter school would not have
enough teachers to cover those different grade levels. According to
representatives of charter school organizations we interviewed,
providing services to students with severe disabilities can be very
costly and some charter schools could face severe financial
difficulties serving students with very severe disabilities.
Charter schools that cited insufficient resources as a challenge
included both charter school LEAs and charter schools within a
district. Other resource challenges school officials cited included
the cost of specialists' services, and obtaining staff qualified to
serve their students' needs, such as a bilingual special education
teacher or a specialist to teach an autistic child. However, two
charter schools within a district said that, because the district
provided all services needed, the cost of services was not a
challenge. Both charter schools were located in the same school
district.
Education Is Reviewing Admission Practices, and Some States Have
Implemented Preventive Measures:
The Office for Civil Rights (OCR) is responsible for ensuring equal
access to education through enforcement of the civil rights laws,
including Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. OCR has issued
regulations implementing Section 504 and conducts complaint
investigations and compliance reviews to determine if entities that
receive federal financial assistance from Education are in compliance
with these regulations. The Section 504 regulations prohibit
discrimination on the basis of disability by recipients and
subrecipients of federal financial assistance from Education.[Footnote
18] The Section 504 regulations also require that entities that
receive federal financial assistance from Education and that operate
public elementary or secondary schools provide a free appropriate
public education to qualified students with disabilities regardless of
the nature or severity of the disability.[Footnote 19] In addition,
OCR issues guidance that explains the requirements of the regulations
and in 2000 issued "Applying Federal Civil Rights Laws to Public
Charter Schools, Questions and Answers" about the civil rights
requirements applicable to charter schools, including Section 504
requirements. OCR also provides technical assistance to school
districts, parents, and other stakeholders regarding the requirements
of Section 504.
During fiscal year 2010, OCR told us that it had investigated
complaints concerning students with disabilities in charter schools.
According to OCR, more than 50 percent of all the complaints OCR
received that year concerned disabilities, but of those complaints,
about 2 percent were made against charter schools.[Footnote 20] OCR
could not readily determine from its complaint management system how
many of those complaints concerned admission to charter schools.
OCR officials also said that OCR has several broad compliance reviews
underway related to students with disabilities and charter schools.
Four of 37 compliance reviews OCR began conducting in fiscal year 2011
focus on charter schools. Of these, two pertain to recruitment and
admissions issues and two address FAPE. Officials said that because
all of these reviews are currently ongoing, they were unable to share
details of what they have found thus far. The officials said that
their compliance reviews involve extensive investigations that may
last up to a year and result in reports of findings and violations, if
any, which are posted on OCR's website. They said they thought that
the ongoing reviews were the first that had included issues of
students with disabilities and charter schools.
Additionally, Justice officials we interviewed said that the
department has recently amended its regulations to permit it to retain
complaints under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
of 1990, as amended, which may include complaints of discrimination
against students with disabilities by public schools, including
charter schools. Justice's Civil Rights Division conducts the
investigations, and told us that its jurisdiction would include
complaints related to admissions issues, including the types of
questions asked by charter schools in applications as well as schools'
practices and procedures for serving students with disabilities.
However, the Civil Rights Division's data collection system does not
capture the number of complaints it received by type of disability or
type of school.
Education's Guidance and Research May Not Address the Range of Issues
Confronting Charter Schools Today:
In 2000, Education both issued its guidance on applying federal civil
rights laws to public charter schools and sponsored an in-depth study
highlighting issues about students with disabilities' access to
charter schools. However, although the number of charter schools has
increased since the issuance of this guidance and research, Education
has not updated its guidance, and officials in Education's Program and
Policy Studies Service and Institute for Education Sciences are not
aware of further research that might address the challenges and issues
confronting charter schools today. Education's guidance addresses a
number of issues, including issues related to the education of
students with disabilities. For example, with respect to outreach and
recruitment practices, the guidance provides that schools may not
discriminate against students with disabilities, among others, and
that recruiting efforts should be directed at all segments of the
community served by the school, including students with disabilities.
Regarding admissions, the guidance specifically states that charter
schools may not categorically deny admission to students on the basis
of disability, including a student's need for special education or
related aids and services. The guidance also notes that when an
enrolled student is believed to have a disability, the school is
required to follow appropriate procedures to identify and refer the
student for evaluation in a timely manner. While the guidance does
provide basic information about charter school practices concerning
students with disabilities, it does not provide more detailed
information on the acceptability of specific practices, such as asking
on a charter school application form whether a child has a disability
or previously had an IEP.
Education also sponsored an in-depth study of students with
disabilities' access to charter schools in 2000. This study, issued by
the Office of Educational Research and Improvement, examined some of
the factors that may explain the difference in students with
disabilities' enrollment in charter schools and traditional public
schools, most prominently highlighting a practice where parents of
students with disabilities were being discouraged during the
admissions process from enrolling their students in charter schools.
[Footnote 21] The study, based on site visits to 35 charter schools,
detailed a lack of fit between the curriculum and the student's needs
and insufficient resources as reasons given for discouraging
enrollment of students with disabilities.[Footnote 22] At the time of
this study, the charter school population was less than one third its
current size, and this study may not fully explain the factors
underlying lower enrollment levels in charter schools.
All Three of the States We Visited Monitored Charter Schools'
Admission Practices:
Among the three state educational agencies (SEA) we visited, all have
implemented measures addressing admission practices in some capacity.
One SEA reported that it had developed detailed monitoring and
guidance for charter schools concerning their responsibilities for
serving students with disabilities.[Footnote 23] This SEA said that
charter schools are advised of their IDEA responsibilities in the
school's application to the state for federal grant funds and in the
state application to become a charter school. This SEA also reported
that a nondiscrimination clause is included in the state's charter
school application, which it said precludes charter schools from
asking for information about disability status or prior receipt of
special education services in their applications for admission.
Admission and enrollment forms are reviewed intensively as part of the
charter school application and renewal process.[Footnote 24]
A second SEA sponsors webinars and works with charter schools prior to
schools opening so that charter schools have more opportunities to
learn about the regulations and their responsibilities for educating
students with disabilities before they open. For example, this SEA is
developing a webinar on how to implement state charter school law
requirements that set enrollment targets for students with
disabilities for all charter schools. The law also required the SEA to
develop a uniform, statewide charter school admission form. The SEA
official we interviewed told us that the state's admission form does
not include questions concerning disability status. While parents'
needs and preferences may influence their decisions about whether or
not to place their child in a charter school, the law requires charter
schools to demonstrate a good-faith effort to recruit them. The third
SEA also does not allow charter schools to ask applicants about
anything related to their need for special education services at the
time they apply for admission to the school.
In contrast to the SEAs, the school district authorizers interviewed
reported little monitoring of charter schools' recruitment or special
education service delivery plans.
Conclusions:
Against the backdrop of a growing and changing charter school
landscape, we found that enrollment of students with disabilities in
the aggregate is lower in charter schools than in traditional public
schools. Whether these enrollment differences will persist or continue
to narrow is difficult to predict, given the lack of information about
factors underlying these differences and how they affect enrollment
levels. By issuing guidance that raises awareness about the practices
that might be perceived as an attempt to discourage enrollment,
officials in the states we visited have already begun to take steps to
forestall the possibility that charter school admission practices play
a role in lower enrollment levels in charter schools. However, the
guidance Education issued in 2000, while important in providing basic
information to charter schools with respect to students with
disabilities, does not provide more detailed information on the
acceptability of specific admission practices under applicable civil
rights laws. Moreover, while Education sponsored research several
years ago that pointed out problems in charter school admission
practices, we believe that the study's findings do not adequately
address the range of possible factors affecting enrollment raised in
our report.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
To help charter schools recognize practices that may affect enrollment
of students with disabilities and improve the information available
for monitoring and oversight, we recommend that the Secretary of
Education do the following:
1. Update existing guidance to ensure that charter schools have better
information about their obligations related to the enrollment of
students with disabilities.
2. Conduct additional fact finding and research to understand the
factors affecting enrollment of students with disabilities in charter
schools and act upon that information, as appropriate.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We provided a draft of this report to the U.S. Department of Education
for review and comment. The comments are reproduced in appendix IV.
Education agreed with our findings and recommendations. Education
commented that it is committed to providing meaningful updated
guidance to its stakeholders and that it is actively working with the
charter school community, parents, civil rights organizations, and
other stakeholders to determine what additional questions are most
pressing and what type of revised guidance would be useful. The
department also said that it anticipates that the knowledge gained
from the four compliance reviews currently underway will provide
additional insights into compliance issues specific to charter schools
that could inform the development of guidance. Further, Education said
that based on information they have received to date, including
information provided in our study, the department is considering
additional or updated guidance for charter schools related to
recruitment, admissions, accessibility, and the provision of a free
appropriate public education (FAPE). With respect to our second
recommendation, Education said that over the next several years, it
proposes to examine issues underlying enrollment of students with
disabilities in several ways. For example, it plans to conduct focus
groups with parents of students with disabilities in a sample of
communities with a larger charter school presence, compile a set of
case studies of charter schools with both high and low enrollment of
students with disabilities, and review state polices and guidance
concerning students with disabilities in charter schools. Education
also provided technical comments, which have been incorporated in the
report as appropriate.
As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents
of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days
from the report date. At that time, we will send copies to the
Secretary of Education.
In addition, the report will be available at no charge on GAO's
website at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. If you or your staff have
any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-7215
or scottg@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional
Relations and Public Affairs can be found on the last page of this
report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this report are
listed in appendix V.
Signed by:
George A. Scott:
Director Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
This appendix discusses our methodology for examining enrollment
levels of students with disabilities in charter schools and
traditional public schools, the types of services charter schools
provide, and the U.S. Department of Education's (Education) role in
ensuring students with disabilities' access. The work was framed
around three questions: (1) How do enrollment levels of students with
disabilities in charter schools and traditional public schools
compare, and what is known about the factors that may contribute to
any differences? (2) How do charter schools reach out to students with
disabilities and what special education services do charter schools
provide? (3) What roles do the U.S. Department of Education, state
educational agencies (SEA), and other entities that oversee charter
schools play in ensuring students with disabilities' access to charter
schools?
To compare enrollment levels of students with disabilities in charter
schools and traditional public schools, we examined school-level data
on counts of students with disabilities for those 41 states[Footnote
25] with operating charter schools in school years 2008-2009 and 2009-
2010 only. To accurately compare enrollment levels, we did not include
data for those 10 states without operating charter schools in our
analysis. We conducted an analysis of the data at the aggregate level,
as well as at the state level, since the aggregate analysis may mask
differences in enrollment levels. To complement the aggregate
analysis, we examined how charter schools reach out to students with
disabilities and the types of services charter schools provide in
selected states, and interviewed the relevant oversight agencies.
To address the questions, we used several sources of data, including
data for school years 2008-2009 and 2009-2010, the most recent data
available at the time, from a custom data file provided to us by
Education, which includes counts of students with disabilities at the
school-level; site visit interviews with officials from charter
schools and school districts in three states selected on the basis of
states with a large number of charter schools, a mix in local
educational agency (LEA) status and geographic diversity; and
interviews with Education, Department of Justice, and SEA officials,
and charter school authorizers. We also interviewed representatives of
state and local charter school organizations and organizations
representing parents of students with disabilities about their
perspective on students with disabilities' access to charter schools.
Before deciding to use the data provided by Education, we conducted a
data reliability assessment. We assessed the reliability of the data
file that Education provided by (1) performing electronic data testing
for obvious errors in accuracy and completeness, (2) reviewing
existing information about the data and the system that produced the
data, and (3) interviewing agency officials knowledgeable about these
data. We determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for the
purposes of this report. We discuss our assessment procedures and
steps we took to mitigate any data limitations in more detail below,
as part of the methodology for determining enrollment levels of
students with disabilities in charter schools and traditional public
schools. We conducted descriptive analyses of the students with
disabilities data, a qualitative analysis of the site visit data, and
a synthesis of the interviews with federal officials, SEA officials,
and charter school authorizers, in addition to reviewing relevant
federal laws and regulations. To obtain an alternative perspective, we
also interviewed organizations representing charter schools and
parents of students with disabilities in the communities of our site
visit locations.
This study was not intended to determine charter schools' compliance
with applicable federal requirements for educating students with
disabilities.
Procedures for Analyzing Data on Students with Disabilities:
To compare enrollment levels of students with disabilities in charter
schools and traditional public schools, we analyzed data for school
years 2008-2009 and 2009-2010, the most recent data available at the
time, from a custom data file provided to us by Education. To prepare
the file, Education analysts extracted the data elements we specified
from the department's large-scale EDFacts data system. The custom data
file includes counts of students with disabilities at the school-
level, which are reported to EDFacts by SEAs through Education's Data
Exchange Network (EDEN) Submission System. This custom data file also
includes the number of students with disabilities, aged 6-21, served
both in charter schools and traditional public schools, disability
type, the educational environment in which students with disabilities
receive services, and whether each school is its own local educational
agency (LEA) or part of a larger LEA. While we received data for
school years 2008-2009 and 2009-2010, we decided to focus our analysis
on data from school year 2009-2010 because states were required to
submit more school-level information in 2009-2010 than in 2008-2009,
and because we could not establish trends or patterns by analyzing
only 2 years of data.
We were able to distinguish charter schools from traditional public
schools using the charter school indicator for each school included in
the custom data file. We use the term "traditional public school" in
order to distinguish between charter schools and other types of public
schools included in the custom data file. For purposes of our
analysis, traditional public schools include regular schools, special
education schools, vocational education schools, alternative or other
schools, and reportable programs. Charter schools may also be
vocational schools or special education schools, for example, but we
did not include school type variations as a variable in our analyses.
The custom data file provided by Education includes counts of children
who received special education and related services under the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) according to an
Individualized Education Program (IEP), Individual Family Service
Plan, or services plan. The data file contains an educational
environment variable which provides more detail on the setting in
which students receive special education and related services. The
variable includes several response categories in addition to a regular
classroom setting. For example, a small percentage of students with
disabilities included in the custom data file were placed in settings
other than a regular classroom such as a correctional facility, a
residential facility, or a separate school. In addition, a very small
percentage of students included in the custom data file were not
"enrolled" in either a traditional public school or a charter school,
but were homebound or in hospitals or were parentally placed in
private schools. However, students in these types of settings may
receive special education services from a traditional public school
district or charter school LEA and may be included in a school's
student count. For example, in some states, parentally-placed students
in private schools who are also receiving special education services
through a regular public school are included in the child count for
that public school by the LEA. This is done to avoid duplicating
counts of students with disabilities who may receive special education
services from more than one school.
In order to calculate the total number of students enrolled in charter
schools and traditional public schools, we obtained all schools' total
enrollment for school years 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 from Education's
Common Core of Data (CCD) and matched this information electronically
to each of the schools in the custom data file, because the custom
data file provides school-level counts of students with disabilities
only, not total enrollment counts. In those instances where there was
no match in CCD (697 cases), we excluded those schools from our
analysis. Schools categorized as closed, inactive, or future schools,
as well as charter schools with an enrollment level of zero (3,106
cases), were also excluded from our analysis.
Matching schools' total enrollment numbers from CCD to each of the
schools in the custom data file allowed us to arrive at the total
number of students enrolled at each individual school included in our
analysis, as well as the total number of students enrolled in all
charter schools and traditional public schools for those 41 states
with operating charter schools. In some states, charter schools that
are their own local educational agency (LEA) may operate more than one
school or campus, often serving different grade levels. In our custom
data file, some charter school LEAs operate more than one charter
school, and schools within these charter school LEAs share the same
LEA identifier. However, each school or campus within the LEA
possesses a unique school identifier (see appendix II for more
information on charter schools' LEA status). For purposes of our
analysis, each campus with a unique school identifier counts as one
school.
For most of our analyses, the unit of analysis was students, rather
than schools. We calculated the percentage of students with
disabilities enrolled in charter schools and traditional public
schools by adding the school-level counts of students with
disabilities in charter schools and traditional public schools from
the custom data file and by dividing by the total number of students
enrolled in all charter schools and traditional public schools,
respectively, using enrollment data from CCD. We also conducted
additional analyses at the aggregate level based on cross-tabulations
using the number of students with disabilities and variables such as
disability type, and educational environment.
In addition to the aggregate analysis on students with disabilities,
we also analyzed enrollment levels of students with disabilities at
the state-level, for those 41 states with operating charter schools in
school year 2009-2010. According to technical notes provided by
Education, 27 states operated less than 100 charter schools. The
availability and quality of the data in our custom data file vary by
state. For example, some states that operated charter schools did not
submit school-level data to Education on students with disabilities.
In addition, while the percentages shown in figure 2 of the report
were calculated using school-level data on students with disabilities,
aggregations at the school-level do not always equal the aggregations
at the LEA and state levels. For example, when states submit annual
data on students with disabilities to Education, they are not required
to submit school-level data for children with disabilities who are
homebound or in hospitals, or for those students with disabilities who
are parentally-placed in private schools. Therefore, in the custom
data file, for those states that did not submit school-level data for
children in these educational settings, total counts of students with
disabilities at the school level were less than total counts at the
LEA and state levels.
For schools in the 41 states with operating charter schools in school
year 2009-2010, data on counts of students with disabilities at the
school-level were missing for 784 out of 4,895 charter schools (16
percent) and for 5,998 out of 80,671 traditional public schools (7
percent). Missing data represent both those schools that did not
enroll any students with disabilities and therefore were not required
to report information, as well as any schools that may have enrolled
students with disabilities, but did not report the data. We were not
able to distinguish between the two types of missing data.
Tennessee and Utah--two states with operating charter schools--
reported data on students with disabilities at the district and state
levels, but did not report data on counts of students with
disabilities at the school-level. Because our analysis was based on
total counts of school-level data, data on students with disabilities
in charter schools and traditional public schools were missing for
these two states. Missing data for these two states combined represent
94 of the 784 charter schools with missing data, and 2,609 of the
5,998 traditional public schools with missing data. Because school-
level data on counts of students with disabilities were missing for
Tennessee and Utah, when calculating the percentages of students with
disabilities in all charter schools and traditional public schools, we
excluded total student enrollment numbers for charter schools and
traditional public schools in these two states from our denominator
when dividing by the total number of students enrolled in charter
schools and traditional public schools. Similarly, for school year
2008-2009, we excluded total enrollment numbers for charter schools
and traditional public schools in the District of Columbia,
Mississippi, Rhode Island, and Tennessee because school-level data on
counts of students with disabilities were missing.
We reported information paying particular attention to tabulations
based on small cell sizes or cross-tabulations of the same data by
other variables, in such a way as to prevent direct or indirect
disclosure of information that would allow the identification of
particular students or schools. To prevent the potential for
identifying personal information from the EDFacts custom data file, we
only present data with categories that have a count of 10 or greater.
If the number of cases is less than 10, the data were either
suppressed or collapsed with other categories to create a count of 10
or greater.
In addition to analyzing data on students with disabilities in charter
schools and traditional public schools by disability type and
educational environment, we also attempted to analyze the data at the
metropolitan level and to include charter school LEA status as a
variable in our cross-tabulations. However, data limitations and
design issues prevented us from including findings at the metropolitan
level and on charter schools' LEA status in our report. For more
information, see appendix II.
To determine some of the factors that may contribute to differences in
enrollment levels, we relied on conversations with representatives of
charter school organizations and researchers, information learned
during our site visits to charter schools and districts in three
states, interviews with federal and state officials, and existing
research on charter schools. We also interviewed individuals familiar
with available research on the topic of students with disabilities in
charter schools and identified research through these sources. For
several of the factors cited in this report, much of the research we
reviewed and information we received was based on anecdotal
information, and information on factors contributing to differences in
enrollment levels is inconclusive. For those studies with quantitative
analyses on students with disabilities in charter schools, we did not
conduct a methodological assessment of each study's methodological
quality, and therefore cannot confirm the reliability of these data.
Site Visit Selection, Data Collection, and Analysis:
To examine how charter schools reach out to students with
disabilities, the types of services charter schools provide, and any
challenges they may face in doing so, we conducted site visits to a
major metropolitan area in three states. We selected these locations
on the basis of the number of charter schools in the state, a mix in
LEA status and geographic diversity. Characteristics of the sites
visited are summarized below.
Table 2: Site Visit Characteristics:
City and state: City and state 1;
Number of charter schools visited: 4;
Charter schools' LEA status: Own LEA--2; Part of larger LEA--2;
Authorizer type: SEA, State Board of Education, LEA;
No. of charter schools in the state: 536;
Geographic location: South.
City and state: City and state 2;
Number of charter schools visited: 5;
Charter schools' LEA status: Own LEA--all;
Authorizer type: State Board of Education, Independent Charter School
Board, LEA;
No. of charter schools in the state: 504;
Geographic location: West.
City and state: City and state 3;
Number of charter schools visited: 4;
Charter schools' LEA status: Part of larger LEA for special education--
all;
Authorizer type: State university, State education department; LEA;
No. of charter schools in the state: 139;
Geographic location: Northeast.
Source: GAO.
[End of table]
During the site visits, we interviewed officials from charter schools
to obtain information about the special education services the charter
school provides; the educational environment in which services are
provided; challenges faced in providing services; and the charter
school's LEA status. We compared responses about LEA status and
services provided to determine if LEA status is related to the types
of services charter schools offer to students with disabilities. We
also asked questions about outreach strategies, which provided us with
information about whether schools are actively seeking to enroll
students with disabilities. The findings of our analysis cannot be
generalized to the charter school population or states with operating
charter schools.
Interviews with Charter School Authorizers and State and Federal
Agency Officials:
To determine the role Education and other organizations play in
ensuring students with disabilities' access to charter schools, we
reviewed relevant federal laws and regulations and interviewed
Education, Department of Justice, and SEA officials, and charter
school authorizers. At Education, we interviewed representatives from
the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS),
the Office for Civil Rights (OCR), the Office of Innovation and
Improvement (OII), and the Office of Elementary and Secondary
Education (OESE) regarding their responsibilities for oversight of
states, school districts, and charter schools. Open ended questions
were used to guide the discussions and the topics included:
* policy or guidance concerning enrollment of students with
disabilities in charter schools:
* collaboration with other Education offices or Justice's Civil Rights
Division in providing guidance to charter schools about enrollment of
students with disabilities,
* any assistance provided to charter schools to pool resources for
serving students with more severe disabilities,
* any assistance provided to states concerning their monitoring of
charter schools' implementation of IDEA, and:
* any research sponsored or supported concerning students with
disabilities and charter schools.
We also interviewed representatives of state and local charter school
organizations and organizations representing parents of students with
disabilities about their perspective on students with disabilities'
access to charter schools.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Additional Analysis:
In addition to conducting analyses at the aggregate level, we also
attempted to analyze the data at the metropolitan level and to include
charter school local educational agency (LEA) status as a variable in
our cross-tabulations. However, data limitations and design issues
prevented us from including findings at the metropolitan level and on
charter schools' LEA status in our report.
Metropolitan-Level Analysis:
Due to variation in charter school structure and policies across
states, and because decisions about the placement of students with
disabilities in charter schools, traditional public schools, or a
separate facility of some type, are made at the school district level,
and placement decisions vary according to students' needs, aggregated
data may mask differences in enrollment levels of students with
disabilities in charter schools and traditional public schools at the
metropolitan level. Therefore, in addition to an aggregate and state-
level analysis for the 41 states with operating charter schools, we
also attempted to analyze counts of students with disabilities at the
school-level for selected metropolitan areas. However, several factors
hindered us from conducting this type of analysis. Some of the
metropolitan areas we considered were missing data on students with
disabilities, while geographical issues presented challenges in other
areas. Specifically, in states where charter schools are their own
LEA, it was not always clear where the charter schools were physically
located in the metropolitan area, and therefore difficult to determine
which traditional public school district should serve as the
appropriate basis of comparison. This is especially true for charter
schools located in large metropolitan cities with more than one school
district. In addition, charter schools' service areas are not always
as well defined as the boundaries for traditional public school
districts, and charter schools may enroll students from different
school districts across the entire metropolitan area, which also
complicates designing this type of data analysis.
We did, however, conduct an exploratory analysis of enrollment levels
of students with disabilities in charter schools and traditional
public schools for one metropolitan area. For this particular area,
all of the charter schools are part of a larger LEA. To protect the
privacy of students with disabilities, we have not disclosed the name
of the metropolitan area. Results from our analysis showed that the
percentage of students with disabilities in charter schools was lower
than in traditional public schools. However, these results cannot be
generalized to other metropolitan areas, and had we been able to
conduct this type of analysis for several different locations based on
variation in LEA structure and geographic location, our analysis may
have produced mixed results.
Local Educational Agency (LEA) Analysis:
Charter school experts we spoke with also indicated that charter
schools' LEA status may affect enrollment levels of students with
disabilities in charter schools because charter schools that are their
own LEA have different responsibilities for serving students with
disabilities than charter schools that are part of a traditional
public school district. For example, traditional public school
districts oversee the placement of students with disabilities in
charter schools that are part of the school district and are often
responsible for providing special education services for those charter
schools, whereas charter schools that are their own LEA are legally
responsible for providing or securing special education services
themselves. According to an Education official, in addition to
satisfying any Individualized Education Program eligibility
requirements, for those charter schools that are their own LEA, the
school also assumes the responsibility of enforcing least restrictive
environment service provision requirements for students with
disabilities, as well as acting as the responsible party during any
due process hearings. Therefore, we also attempted to conduct an
analysis including charter schools' LEA status as a variable in our
cross-tabulations to see how enrollment levels of students with
disabilities may differ within the charter school population. However,
several limitations prohibited us from analyzing information on LEA
status in the findings section of this report, which we discuss below.
Using the LEA identifier from the EDFacts custom data file, we were
able to identify charter schools that are part of a larger,
traditional public school district, as well as those individual
charter schools that are their own LEA. However, even though a charter
school may be its own LEA, depending on state law, the school may be
part of a larger district for purposes of the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).[Footnote 26] Therefore, any type of
analysis including charter schools' LEA status may not necessarily
provide meaningful insight into who is responsible for providing
special education services or why enrollment levels of students with
disabilities might differ in charter school LEAs and charter schools
within a district.
Furthermore, some undetermined proportion of charter school LEAs in
our analysis operated more than one charter school or campus during
school year 2009-2010. In our EDFacts custom data file, for these
multicampus charter school arrangements, in some states multiple
charter schools or campuses share the same LEA identifier. These
multicampus charter school arrangements make it difficult to assign
LEA status to each individual school or campus within a multicampus
arrangement. While we learned that some states equate one LEA with one
charter, we were not able to determine from the data whether or not
these multicampus arrangements operated under one or more charters.
Therefore, we could not determine whether these arrangements should
count as one or more than one LEA.
[End of section]
Appendix III: Additional Data:
For the most part, we found that traditional public schools and
charter schools served a similar distribution of students by
disability type. More than 70 percent of students with disabilities in
traditional public schools and charter schools had disabilities such
as a specific learning disability, a speech or language impairment, or
other health impairment, and both types of schools enrolled lower
percentages of students with hearing, orthopedic, or visual
impairments, for example (see figure 7). However, when comparing the
distribution of students with certain disabilities, such as students
with an emotional disturbance or a specific learning disability, the
percent was higher in charter schools than traditional public schools.
Figure 7: Distributions of Students' Disability Types for Students
with Disabilities Enrolled in Traditional Public Schools and Charter
Schools for School Year 2009-2010:
[Refer to PDF for image: horizontal bar graph]
Tradition public schools: N = 4,756,363;
Charter Schools: N = 129,873.
Percentage of students enrolled with disability type: Autism:
Tradition public schools: 5.6%;
Charter Schools:5.3%.
Percentage of students enrolled with disability type: Deaf-blindness:
Tradition public schools: less than 0.01%;
Charter Schools: less than 0.01%.
Percentage of students enrolled with disability type: Developmental
delay:
Tradition public schools: 1.6%;
Charter Schools: 0.6%.
Percentage of students enrolled with disability type: Emotional
disturbance:
Tradition public schools: 6.5%;
Charter Schools: 7.9%.
Percentage of students enrolled with disability type: Hearing impaired:
Tradition public schools: 1.2%;
Charter Schools: 0.8%.
Percentage of students enrolled with disability type: Intellectual
disabilities:
Tradition public schools: 7.5%;
Charter Schools: 5.5%.
Percentage of students enrolled with disability type: Multiple
disabilities:
Tradition public schools: 1.8%;
Charter Schools: 1.4%.
Percentage of students enrolled with disability type: Orthopedic
impairment:
Tradition public schools: 1.0%;
Charter Schools: 1.0%.
Percentage of students enrolled with disability type: Other health
impairment:
Tradition public schools: 11.6%;
Charter Schools:11.1%.
Percentage of students enrolled with disability type: Specific
learning disability:
Tradition public schools: 42.7%;
Charter Schools: 47.1%.
Percentage of students enrolled with disability type: Speech or
language impairment:
Tradition public schools: 18.6%;
Charter Schools: 18.6%.
Percentage of students enrolled with disability type: Traumatic brain
injury:
Tradition public schools: 0.4%;
Charter Schools: 0.4%.
Percentage of students enrolled with disability type: Visual
impairment:
Traditional public schools: 0.4%;
Charter Schools: 0.2%.
Source: GAO analysis of EDFacts data.
Note: Missing data are not shown.
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Comments from the U.S. Department of Education:
United States Department of Education:
Office of Innovation and Improvement:
400 Maryland Ave, SW:
Washington, DC 20202:
[hyperlink, http://www.ed.gov]
May 18, 2012:
Mr. George A. Scott:
Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues:
Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Mr. Scott:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) draft report, "Charter Schools: Additional
Federal Attention Needed to Help Protect Access for Students with
Disabilities."
We appreciate the time that GAO has committed to this study, and I am
pleased to respond on behalf of the U.S. Department of Education. Our
technical comments on the draft report are enclosed, and our responses
to your specific recommendations to the Department follow.
We would like to point out that given the small sample size and the
relatively small differences identified between charter and other
public schools, it is difficult to draw any particular conclusions
based directly on the limited information provided in the report.
However, we agree that this is an important area, and the Department
is committed to taking steps to address the issues discussed in the
report.
Recommendation 1: Update existing guidance to ensure that charter
schools have better information about their obligations related to the
enrollment of students with disabilities.
The Department agrees with this recommendation and is committed to
providing meaningful updated guidance to its stakeholders. We are
actively working with charter schools, charter authorizers, charter
management organizations, parents, civil rights organizations, and
other stakeholders to determine what additional questions are most
pressing and what type of revised guidance would be most useful. For
example, on March 30, 2012, the Department held the "Voluntary Public
School Choice" conference. District and school leaders who work with
charter schools, magnet schools, and other school choice programs
attended the conference and were encouraged to express their questions
about federal law, The Department's Office of Innovation and
Improvement (011) is sponsoring, on June 19, 2012, a one-day
conference entitled, "Building the Capacity of Charter Schools:
Effectively Serving Students with Disabilities." This conference, as
well as other anticipated meetings with charter school authorizers and
operators, will provide the Department with the opportunity to hear
from the charter school community and other stakeholders about the
issues, and whether, and on what topics if any, additional or updated
guidance would be helpful.
Also, as GAO notes, the Department's Office for Civil Rights (OCR) is
conducting four compliance reviews that include issues regarding
charter schools and students with disabilities. OCR anticipates that
the knowledge gained from these reviews (whether or not noncompliance
is identified) will provide some additional insight into compliance
issues specific to charter schools, and thus inform the development of
possible additional or updated guidance that will be useful to charter
schools, school districts, and parents. OCR also plans to review a
sample of recent complaint resolutions involving charter schools and
students with disabilities for the same reason.
Based on the information received to date, including information
provided in GAO's study and information from several offices within
the Department, some issues the Department anticipates considering for
additional or updated guidance are charter schools' obligations
regarding recruitment, admissions, provision of a free appropriate
public education, and accessibility. In addition to the civil rights
laws enforced by OCR, the requirements of the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and the IDEA regulations,
administered by the Department's Office of Special Education Programs
within the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services
(OSERS), also affect the obligations of charter schools related to
students with disabilities. 0II, OCR, and OSERS will closely
coordinate on any additional or revised guidance concerning charter
schools and students with disabilities.
Recommendation 2: Conduct additional fact finding and research to
understand the factors affecting enrollment of students with
disabilities in charter schools and act upon that information, as
appropriate.
The Department agrees with this recommendation and plans to conduct
additional fact finding and research on factors that may be affecting
enrollment of students with disabilities in charter schools, as
appropriate. Over the next several years, the Department proposes to
examine these issues through activities designed to inform guidance
and support targeting stakeholders in the charter school community—-
including charter school authorizers, charter school support
organizations, and charter schools themselves-—pertaining to charter
school enrollment of, and services for, students with disabilities.
Specific activities within the next several years may include:
* Reviewing and documenting state policies, guidance, and reports
regarding enrollment of, and services to, students with disabilities
in charter schools;
* Conducting focus groups with parents of students with disabilities
in a sample of communities with a large charter school presence; and;
* Compiling a set of case studies of charter schools with both high
and low enrollment of students with disabilities, of varied levels of
severity and significance, representing various policy contexts.
In addition to activities to inform guidance and support on this
subject, the Department will continue to require charter school
grantees to assure compliance with applicable laws and regulations
related to students with disabilities, and we will also consider
incentives, if appropriate, to charter schools and other grantees who
propose additional outreach to students with disabilities. For
example, the Charter Schools Program's grant notices are likely to
continue to include competitive and invitational priorities for
applications that propose to improve achievement for students with
disabilities and promote diversity, including for students with
disabilities.
Thank you again for the opportunity to comment on the draft report.
The Department remains committed to inclusion, diversity, and high
performance for all charter school students, and will continue to work
with states, authorizers, and charter schools on these issues. Please
let us know if you have any questions or would like to discuss our
comments. We look forward to receiving the final report.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
James H. Shelton III:
Assistant Deputy Secretary for Innovation and Improvement:
Enclosure
[End of section]
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
George A. Scott, (202) 512-7215, scottg@gao.gov:
Staff Acknowledgments:
Sherri Doughty, Assistant Director; Sara Edmondson, Analyst-in-Charge;
Meredith Moore; Jason Palmer, Susannah Compton, Luann Moy, Ying Long,
Amy Sweet, Sheila McCoy, James Rebbe, and James Bennett also made
significant contributions to this report.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] This lawsuit is currently pending in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Louisiana and was filed by the Southern
Poverty Law Center. P.B. v. Pastorek, No. 2:10-cv-04049.
[2] We use the term "traditional public school" to distinguish charter
schools from other types of public schools. For more information on
the different types of public schools, see appendix I.
[3] Codified at 29 U.S.C. § 794.
[4] Codified at 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq.
[5] 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(1).
[6] 34 C.F.R. § 300.209.
[7] 34 C.F.R. § 104.4(a).
[8] 34 C.F.R. §§ 104.33-104.36.
[9] 42 U.S.C. § 12132. Public entities include any state or local
government and any of its departments, agencies, or other
instrumentalities.
[10] Pursuant to a delegation by the Attorney General of the United
States, OCR shares in the enforcement of Title II for all program,
services, and regulatory activities related to the operation of public
elementary and secondary education programs, institutions of higher
education and vocational education (other than schools of medicine,
dentistry, nursing, and other health-related schools), and libraries.
The Department of Justice (Justice) amended its regulations in 2010 to
allow Justice to exercise its discretion to retain a Title II
complaint that may fall within another agency's jurisdiction. Justice
stated that it would consult with the other agency if it does plan to
retain the complaint. 28 C.F.R. § 35.190(e) and Nondiscrimination on
the Basis of Disability in State and Local Government Services, 75
Fed. Reg. 56, 164, 56, 229 (Sept. 15, 2010).
[11] For purposes of our analysis, the term "enrolled" includes
students with disabilities who received special education and related
services under IDEA in a regular classroom as well as students in
other educational environments whose services were provided through a
traditional public school district or charter school LEA. For more
information on the different educational environments for students
with disabilities, see appendix I.
[12] The student population for our analysis includes students aged 6
to 21 in those 40 states with operating charter schools and the
District of Columbia during school years 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 only.
Data for students in traditional public schools in those 10 states
without operating charter schools during school years 2008-2009 and
2009-2010 are omitted from our analysis. We also excluded schools
categorized as closed, inactive, or future schools as well as charter
schools with an enrollment level of zero. School-level data on
students with disabilities were not available for the District of
Columbia, Mississippi, Rhode Island, and Tennessee for school year
2008-2009 and for Tennessee and Utah for school year 2009-2010. See
appendix I for more information.
[13] The 13 categories defined by IDEA are: (1) autism, (2) deaf-
blindness, (3) developmental delay, (4) emotional disturbance, (5)
hearing impairment, (6) intellectual disabilities, (7) multiple
disabilities, (8) orthopedic impairment, (9) specific learning
disability, (10) speech or language impairment, (11) traumatic brain
injury, (12) visual impairment, and (13) other health impairment. Some
states do not use all of these disability categories.
[14] Secondary and combined schools accounted for 27 and 19 percent of
charter schools, respectively, and for 24 and 5 percent of traditional
public schools, respectively.
[15] In school year 2008-2009, approximately 45 percent of all school-
aged students with disabilities were aged 6 to 10; 24 percent of
students were aged 11-13; 25 percent 14-18; and 6 percent 19-21.
[16] Education collects data on the number of students with
disabilities, ages 14 through 21 only, who exited special education.
Therefore, there are no comprehensive data for all school-aged
students who leave special education.
[17] A table describing the characteristics of the charter schools we
visited is provided in appendix I.
[18] 34 C.F.R. Part 104.
[19] 34 C.F.R. §§ 104.33-104.36. OCR stated that it recognizes that
state charter school laws may affect how responsibilities are
allocated among varying entities in connection with the provision of
FAPE for students with disabilities enrolled in charter schools. In
enforcing Section 504 regulations, OCR stated that its responsibility
is to determine whether students with disabilities are treated in a
nondiscriminatory manner and are provided a FAPE. OCR also noted that
there is nothing in its regulations or guidance that indicates that
the obligations of recipients to provide nondiscriminatory admissions
and a FAPE are limited because of factors such as a lack of resources.
[20] In school year 2009-2010, approximately 3.6 percent of all
students enrolled in public schools were enrolled in charter schools.
[21] See Thomas Fiore, Lessley M. Harwell, Jose Blackorby and Kara S.
Finnegan, Students with Disabilities in Charter Schools: A National
Study (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, 2000).
[22] The study employed a purposive sample of schools based on five
variables that defined key characteristics of charter schools. The
variables, identified from a review of research, represented factors
that may influence charter schools' capacity to serve students with
disabilities. The variables were (1) proportion of students with
disabilities enrolled, (2) federal public charter school grant
recipient status, (3) level of operational autonomy based on the
extent of the schools' control over admissions and budgets, (4) grade
levels served, and (5) geographic region.
[23] At the state level, SEAs oversee compliance with IDEA's
requirements for identification and assessment of students with
disabilities and the provision of a free appropriate public education.
In addition, SEAs may assist the state authorizer with its charter
school oversight responsibilities, including accepting and reviewing
applications to become a charter school and assessment of the charter
school's performance at charter renewal.
[24] However, this SEA monitors only charter school LEAs authorized by
the State Board of Education.
[25] For purposes of this report, we include the District of Columbia
in our analysis of states.
[26] In addition, in some states, each student's district of residence
LEA may be responsible for evaluation and services.
[End of section]
GAO’s Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the
performance and accountability of the federal government for the
American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates
federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations,
and other assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy,
and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government is
reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and
reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO’s website [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports,
testimony, and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] and select “E-
mail Updates.”
Order by Phone:
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black
and white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s
website, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm].
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
Connect with GAO:
Connect with GAO on facebook, flickr, twitter, and YouTube.
Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.
Visit GAO on the web at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Website: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm];
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov;
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470.
Congressional Relations:
Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125
Washington, DC 20548.
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, DC 20548.